Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28294392›Full record

ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2017

Cost-effectiveness of population-based, community, workplace and individual policies for diabetes prevention in the UK.

P R Breeze, C Thomas, H Squires, A Brennan, C Greaves, P Diggle, E Brunner, A Tabak, L Preston, J Chilcott

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Preventing type 2 diabetes: A research agenda for behavioural science.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

P R BreezeSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
C ThomasSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
H SquiresSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
A BrennanSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
C GreavesUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter.
P DiggleMedical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
E BrunnerEpidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
A TabakEpidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
L PrestonSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
J ChilcottSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
University of Sheffield · GBLancaster University · GBSemmelweis University · HUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/2/30098Department of Health CDF-2012-05-259Medical Research Council MR/K013351/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions for Type 2 diabetes prevention within a common framework.

methodsA micro-simulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a range of diabetes prevention interventions including: (1) soft drinks taxation; (2) retail policy in socially deprived areas; (3) workplace intervention; (4) community-based intervention; and (5) screening and intensive lifestyle intervention in individuals with high diabetes risk. Within the model, individuals follow metabolic trajectories (for BMI, cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and glycaemia); individuals may develop diabetes, and some may exhibit complications of diabetes and related disorders, including cardiovascular disease, and eventually die. Lifetime healthcare costs, employment costs and quality-adjusted life-years are collected for each person.

resultsAll interventions generate more life-years and lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and reduce healthcare spending compared with doing nothing. Screening and intensive lifestyle intervention generates greatest lifetime net benefit (£37) but is costly to implement. In comparison, soft drinks taxation or retail policy generate lower net benefit (£11 and £11) but are cost-saving in a shorter time period, preferentially benefit individuals from deprived backgrounds and reduce employer costs.

conclusionThe model enables a wide range of diabetes prevention interventions to be evaluated according to cost-effectiveness, employment and equity impacts over the short and long term, allowing decision-makers to prioritize policies that maximize the expected benefits, as well as fulfilling other policy targets, such as addressing social inequalities.

Indexed as

Diet, HealthyHealth PolicyHealthy LifestyleModels, EconomicQuality of LifeCarbonated BeveragesComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisCosts and Cost AnalysisCost SavingsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EnglandHealth EducationHealth PromotionHealth SurveysHumans

Identifiers

PMID28294392
PMCPMC5573930
OpenAlexW2592213062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.